Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Witness the 'Dark Age' cult of evolution. Scientism now reigns as the 'religion', or rather cult dogma of modern society. An essential element of the Evolutionary cult and our modern Scientism is the belief that only 'natural processes' of 'chance combinations', including the creation of constellations, planets, life, morality, thinking and emotions, are 'valid'. There is precious little science in the cult of Scientism and Evolution. We can add geological strata; uniformitarianism; globaloneywarming; Marxist dialecticism; and paracletes to parents; within the Dark Age cult of modern science. Today it is about dogma; state funded theology; getting published and tenured professorships. It is not about science.
Another example is the 'chance formation' from a 'Big Bang' of the unfathomable complexity called the Universe. As if gases, impelled by an explosion, magically form orbs, spheres, rocks, material, life and water. Yet, fuelled by public money the cult of Evolution persists in erasing science and instituting their Dark Age.
Tyson an heir to Carl Sagan is a case in point. Like other dogmatic Evolutionists Tyson, tutored by Sagan, believes that everything, including the 48 feet of library book shelf code in your body, named DNA, is a random chance occurrence. This is the old stupidity of 100 monkeys pounding on a keyboard theory, would over 4 billion years produce Shakespeare. In actual fact, over 4 billion years, the monkey's using mathematical probability calculations would produce absolutely nothing of value. Nada.
Maybe Sagan’s Cosmos book didn’t happen by design either—we are just in the lucky universe with the infinitesimally small probability of the book arising by monkeys typing on typewriters. For more, see discussion of multiverses in a rebuttal to Stephen Hawking, and Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? New Scientist columnist falls on her own sword over multiverse theory.
According to Tyson and Evolutionists the knuckle-dragging Christians believed in a flat earth, and geocentricity as late as 1600 AD. This is sheer ignorance. No one after 200 BC believed in a flat earth; and the Christians were calculating the earth's rotation, gravity and how and why the earth would rotate around the Sun by 1300 AD, long before Copernicus and Galileo. Everyone knew that the earth was small and the universe a vast complexity and given the law of economy, the Earth likely moved around the far larger Sun.
This is historical nonsense. As C.S. Lewis was fond of pointing out, the medieval theologians were well aware that compared to the vastness of the heavens, the earth was but a point in space. He documented this from the standard astronomy textbook of the Middle Ages, the Almagest by Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 90–c. AD 168):
'The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.'
But somehow modern antitheists like Tyson and Hawking think this is news, and regard it as a profound disproof of God, as if God needed a small universe to exist. But if the universe were small, then these same critics would probably complain, ‘If God is so great, then why didn’t He create anything else?
Buridan, Oresme, the Christian scholastics and other European Catholic scientists were the ones who developed science including helio-centricity [independent of Aristarchus it should be stated].
Tyson and his reductionist Evolution friends always posit a 'Big Bang' or some magical explosion of matter and thenceforward life from dead matter. The Big Bang is anything but a fact; and life apparently does not emanate from dead material.
Tyson naturally defends the big bang dogma, although many secular scientists disagree—see Secular scientists blast the big bang: What now for naïve apologetics? He skimps on alleged evidence like the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, despite the lack of predicted shadows and the logical fallacy of verified predictions (see The Big Bang fails another test and Nobel Prize for alleged big bang proof).
Order cannot come from chaos. It is physically impossible to have an explosion and expect structure, coherence and life to self-organize. This is really dumb.
Tyson, the Cosmos version anyway, then explains how stars formed galaxies. However, such enormous-scale structures are a problem for evolutionists. Very distant objects, by big bang reasoning, should have formed not long after the alleged bang. However, some of these discovered superstructures, including the Francis Filament of galaxies, should have taken far longer to form by naturalistic means. Dr Karl Glazebrook, of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, admitted:
'We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead, we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn’t have been there, but are.'
Whoops. Evolution is science-fiction. It no more explains the Universe and life than Alice-in-Wonderland. Sagan, Tyson, Hawking and other science-fiction writers sound more like non-scientists selling used-cars, than as independent minds seeking out truth.